Template talk:Multiple issues

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Template move request[edit]

This template should be moved/renamed to something similar to "There are problems with this page", for reasons of clarity and common sense. To highlight but one aspect of the growing use of the word issues to refer to what used to be called problems, it degrades the word's unique meaning, which Merriam-Webster defines simply as "something that people are talking about, thinking about, etc.: an important subject or topic".[1] For instance, "The economy", "The weather", and "What is up with Donald Trump's hair?" can all be issues, and we do not have another word that expresses the same meaning quite so well; to dilute its meaning for the sake of euphemism merely obliges us to find another word to replace it. According to Wikipedia's five pillars, the site exists to "characterize information and issues"; therefore, to say that a given page "has issues" is somewhat meaningless.

The sense of issue as "a point to be decided", such as the issue of whether to wear a yellow shirt or a blue shirt, for example, dates from the early 1800s. [2] In this usual sense, not all issues imply that there are deficiencies or things in need of remediation. But this Wikipedia template does identify a need for improvements to a page, not just a general discussion or a selection between equally valid alternatives. In this context, the word problems is the most concise and unambiguous term.

There seems to be a growing belief that to simply call something a problem somehow evinces negativity, which is itself viewed as a problem. Issue is therefore often selected as a less offensive term. However, this is to place a subjective judgement or feeling ahead of clarity of meaning; in this context, "issues" is simply a euphemism and does not enhance the reader's understanding.

Coconutporkpie (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


Requested move 31 December 2014[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Multiple issuesTemplate:Multiple problems

  • WP:EUPHEMISM: 'Some words that are proper in many contexts also have euphemistic senses that should be avoided: do not use issue for problem or dispute.'
  • WP:COMMONALITY: 'Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles.'

This template refers specifically to 'problems'. The word 'issues', on the other hand, very often refers to matters that are not 'problems' at all. Using 'issues' as a euphemism for 'problems' is a relatively recent phenomenon, especially in the United States, and has the potential to cause confusion or annoyance, particularly for foreign readers (see here, for example). Whilst the word 'issue' sometimes works for some people, we should use the term that is clear and unambiguous to all. (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This isn't an encyclopedia article, so euphemism doesn't apply. As for commonality, the Cambridge dictionary defines an issue as "a subject or problem." -- Calidum 03:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The definition cited is actually 'a subject or problem that people are thinking and talking about'. Would it make sense for the template to say 'This article has multiple subjects that people are thinking about'? Or should it say (using the same dictionary's definition for 'problem') 'This article has multiple subjects that need attention and need to be dealt with'? This is a subtle, but important, difference between problem and issue (essentially, that 'problems' are 'issues' that need a solution, whilst 'issues' are very vague topics of discussion). Of course, many ignore this and use 'issue' to mean the same as 'problem', but very many do not. (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
No offense, but this is really a solution in search of an issue. I'm not sure anyone has had any issue with the current wording of the template until you brought it up. There is no good cause to move it. -- Calidum 03:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
No offense taken. It is something that has troubled me whenever I have seen it used on articles, especially being someone who has grown up being taught not to use issues in this way. I am surprised because Wikipedia is usually good at spotting these types of things. The very previous comment was from a dissatisfied user. Here is a list of comments I have found from a quick search: (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I understand where the nominator is coming from, but the euphemism actually has value here; it removes a potential moral obstacle to using the template appropriately, since the tagger isn't accusing the article of having anything more serious than "issues". Since the template name is rarely rad directly, mealy-mouthedness isn't a big issue. I'd suggest that the proposed title is a perfectly acceptable template redirect, however, for those who have no issue with calling a problem a problem. (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Template name is well-established, it's not visible on pages, no need to change names. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Usage of "issues" does present a scholarly dilemma and yet is far better than "problems". I was brought up to avoid the use of "problem" and replace it with "challenge". Hmm, "Multiple challenges"?... Nah! Face-smile.svg – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 23:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm afraid of the potential for such a change to cause technical "issues" for no good reason. Feel free to suggest changes in the wording of the message that is actually displayed to readers. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • SNOW oppose: Out of 4,981,445 on the English Wikipedia, less than 44% of them are not redirects or DAB pages. This template is used on 5% of the remaining 2,203,917 articles. Moving this template for any reason would cause a massive technical debt and tie up the job queue for months and months on end if it didn't lock up the servers all together (kind of like deleting the main page would and has). On top of that, this template is relied upon at its current name by both Twinkle and AWB. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 00:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:SNOW. I agree with User:Technical 13. It would cause pandemonium in Wikipedia's servers. Pages would shatter apart. Lists would be blanked entirely. Formatting error messages would litter the streets of mainspacelandia. Every category would start an deletion discussion. Editors would be confused and make countless errors. Robots assigned to clean up the articles would make mistakes and ruin Wikipedia beyond control. No one would be able to help articles with multiple issues. I'm not being sarcastic. It would suck. It would take a long time to make Wikipeia normal again. And at what cost? Your two articles that you used in your argument are not that proving per other editors arguments in this section. EMachine03 (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request to remove old-style parameters[edit]

Now that Magioladitis has fixed all of the articles in Category:Pages with multiple issues using deprecated parameters, is it time to remove the old code from this template? I recommend we could do the following:

  • Subst: All pages in Talk, Template talk, User talk, Wikipedia (these are static and should never change)
  • Fix: Any articles that have the old style added
  • No actions: All pages in Draft, Template, User, Wikipedia talk (these are sandboxes that the owner should change)

What do you think? GoingBatty (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support and am willing to help with substitutions and fixes. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 13:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Technical 13, GoingBatty I think we can start. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I posted at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle and Wikipedia talk:AWB to make them aware of this conversation. GoingBatty (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I updated the code at Template:Multiple issues/sandbox to remove the old code, which you can see at Template:Multiple issues/testcases. GoingBatty (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Umm... Okay, but I'd like to see an intermediate state where there is a section that adds all pages using a deprecated parameter name to a maint cat like Category:Pages using deprecated Multiple Issues parameters. At least until the old uses are all cleaned up. GB, do you want to add that to the sandbox or do you want me to?  :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 00:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
@Technical 13: I agree that old uses have to be cleaned up (per my suggestion above) before the changes are made to the live template, and I'm willing to do that cleanup. Could you please help me understand the difference between the existing Category:Pages with multiple issues using deprecated parameters and your proposed Category:Pages using deprecated Multiple Issues parameters? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Other than the category pagename doesn't meet the standards for page name ("Multiple issues" is a cased noun), which although I don't care about, others apparently do based on a recent discussion I was in, that is a fine category for the purpose. What I'm wondering is how that category is populated though, because it is not evident in the template itself. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 01:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
@Technical 13: The category is populated via Template:Multiple issues/message, which I think could be sent to TfD after this cleanup. GoingBatty (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I see. I have no fault with that at this time. How will that be affected by cleaning out all the code that supports those parameters. I'm assuming based on what I've seen it will have no impact, but want to be sure. I'd wait on sending that to TfD or sending the category to CfD for at least six months to make sure there aren't any rogue tools that are still adding the parameters and there are no users trying to add the old parameters not knowing better (I'd imagine that users are less likely than a tool). — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 01:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
@Technical 13: I agree there's value in waiting to do the TfD/CfD. However, since the sandbox code doesn't call Template:Multiple issues/message, the category wouldn't get populated anymore once my proposed change to Template:Multiple issues is made. GoingBatty (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

GoingBatty I think for drafts, we can either convert to new style or send for MfD any STALEDRAFT that has not been edited for 3 or more years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: We can fix articles in the Draft namespace too. Has the Draft namespace has been around for more than three years? GoingBatty (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
GoingBatty my mistake. The latter refers to sandboxes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No need to send them to MfD as STALEDRAFT. CSD:G13 says, This criterion applies to all WikiProject Articles for creation drafts in project space and project talk space, as well as userspace drafts and drafts in the Draft: namespace that are using the project's {{AFC submission}} template. Simply tag them for G13 if they already have a AfC banner or tag with {{AFC submission|t||ts= timestamp |u= page creator |ns=118}} and wait six months. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

GoingBatty In many cases in the talk space, adding nowiki tags was OK. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Tag can be removed from many talk pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: I removed the tags from a couple of article talk pages. Using nowiki tags instead of substing on article talk pages is OK with me. GoingBatty (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Now we are down to 27. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Thanks for all your work on this - sorry I wasn't much help. The Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia articles are protected so only admins can edit them. I edited a couple, and the rest look like tests of the templates to be left alone. Do you think we're ready to change the template now? GoingBatty (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Go for it. Just one question - what is the purpose of the following code? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
{{#invoke:String|replace|source={{{1|}}}|pattern=style="display: none"|replace=|count=}}
@MSGJ: That's the magic I added to hide the {{orphan}} template, when it's supposed to be hidden. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: Should that be documented in a comment in the template code, so future editors of this template don't accidentally remove it? GoingBatty (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I added a comment in the template's sandbox. To clarify, that line is using the Module:String replace function to replace the pattern style="display: none" with nothing (i.e. remove it). {{Orphan}} by default hides its message, but we always show it when it's sandwiched inside {{multiple issues}}, so that's the trick that brings it back. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Technical 13, GoingBatty, MSGJ let's wait 7 days to check whether any new items will be added. For instance, this happened yesterday. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It's weird but today I noticed 2 more items pop-up. Some server delay prevents us from showing all pages with deprecated parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Not weird, but commonplace. This "server delay" is called the job queue, and it used to work just fine: if a template was altered in such a way that there was a change to categorisation of pages transcluding that template, the category would be fully up to date inside the day, often in an hour or two. But around about the time that VisualEditor went live for all users (mid 2013), the job queue software was altered and is no longer as thorough as it used to be. Sometimes it can be months before a cat is properly shaken out. If absolutely necessary, we could ask Joe Decker (talk · contribs) to send Joe's Null Bot (talk · contribs) off to carry out a WP:NULLEDIT on all of these pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Redrose64 I guess I could run my script against all pages transcluding the template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64 and GoingBatty: I ran my script against all pages transcluding MI. Approx. 40 pages fixed. there is a small chance that I may have missed some parameters not covered by my script but these would be really few. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that even if we remove the old style code we should keep the tracking category for some time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Could you please update Template:Multiple issues/sandbox with a proposal for how to keep the tracking category? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@Frietjes: maybe you could help us with that? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Frietjes, GoingBatty, and Redrose64: et al. I guess Category:Pages using multiple issues with incorrect parameters will catch any problems i.e. we can now use the sandbox version. Right? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: I added an example of the old style code to Template:Multiple issues/testcases, and it didn't add Category:Pages using multiple issues with incorrect parameters to the page. GoingBatty (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@GoingBatty and Magioladitis:, just significantly increased the sensitivity of the tracking category, feel free to revert if it causes a problem, but the new tracking will catch "anything" that isn't used in the sandbox version, including parameters that were never in the template (typos, parameter misspellings, ...). Frietjes (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
note that there are two tracking categories in the live version, Category:Pages with multiple issues using deprecated parameters (which is now enhanced) and Category:Pages using multiple issues with incorrect parameters (which only checks for |2=). in the sandbox version, I merged these into Category:Pages using multiple issues with incorrect parameters since the additional tracked parameters will be removed at that point (and not just deprecated). Frietjes (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@Frietjes: Thanks for that update - there are now many pages in Category:Pages with multiple issues using deprecated parameters to be fixed. Any idea why they're not being sorted alphabetically? (e.g. Internet television is listed under "R") Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@Frietjes: Upon closer inspection, it appears that the category is sorting based on the incorrect parameter instead of the article title. (e.g. Internet television has an incorrect |reason= parameter.) GoingBatty (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
yes, it sorts by _VALUE_PAGENAME, so first by the parameter name, then by title. it's easy to change if you check the tracking code. Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

New version implemented[edit]

@Frietjes, GoingBatty, Redrose64, and Technical 13: et al. Sandbox version is now live! Please check for any problems. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 08:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Thanks for updating the template, and thanks to everyone for helping. Since the template no longer uses Category:Pages with multiple issues using deprecated parameters, can this category be sent to CfD? GoingBatty (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I think G6 would cover it ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@MSGJ: Tagged with {{db-g6}} - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Does this mean that any instances of it I can find I can make an edit for the sole purpose of fixing now since it is no longer just cosmetic? — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 17:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@Technical 13: Yes - they should now show up in Category:Pages using multiple issues with incorrect parameters. I suspect that the category will continue to be populated as the template change works through the job queue. I'm finding several instances where the template needs to be fixed, and cleanup categories need to be recreated. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

How do you remove 'This page has multiple issues' from a page?[edit]

I am new to wikipedia and an editor has added this to a page I have edited. How can I remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

See response at Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#How_to_know_if_issues_are_resolved_and_the_issue_box_can_be_taken_down. GoingBatty (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)